tay cuAPTER Ut WHAT ARE “HISTORY” AND “HISTORICAL SOURCES”? The Meaning of “History” “Tice Enotsme word history is derived from the Creek noun lovopia, mesning leaming As used by the Greek Philosopher Anstotle, history meant a sytematic 2c- Count ofa tof natural phengmens, whee ot chronological ordering was a factor im the account, and that usage, though rate, sil prevails in English inthe phrase notural hirtry. In the couse of time, owever, the equivalent Latin word sientia (Engish, science) came to be wed mote regularly to designate on / “qnsrony” Ano “nsronicat. sources” 49. rmathed the btorion _endenvors t0-seconstct 38 imuch of the past of mankind as he cap. Even in this limited effort, however, the Fistoran i handicapped He rately can tell the story even of a part of the past “as st actually oceurted,” although the great Ger. ‘man historian Leopold von Ranke enjoined him to do 20, because in addition to the probable incomplete- ness of the records, he is faced withthe inadequacy of the human imagination and of human speech for such an “actual” recreation, But he can endeaver, to use a geometrician’s phrase, to approach the actual past “as a limit.” For the past conceived of as something that “actually occurred” places obvious limits upon the Kinds of record and of imagination that he may tse. He oust be sue that hiv eros rally come thd Hats imagination dived twa ‘ii, poy, doen, od San. ot, <\dmagination, jn Historiography ‘(The historian is not permitted to imagine things that could not reasonably have happened. iFor certain purposes that we shall Iater examine he may imagine ' Some confusion aries fom the ave of the term historical method by practitioners in other disciplines (economics and The. ‘Fog especialy) to mean the aplication of histveal data and ils. tations to their problems. It wil simplify ov dicuson to testi the tm tthe Ietod by wich nova ftimon 5 weed Se astheausand cle ite Cons by Boon “ol hoi” However, generally include nt onl insti in sch analysis but alo the syteseng of soch date ato vlble hora txpotitions and marae.0 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY things that might have happened. But he is frequently required to imagine things that must have happened For the exercise of the imagination in history it is impossible to lay down rules except very general ones. Tr is a platitude that the historan sho knows con temporary_lite_best_will_understand_past_Ivle_best. Since the human mentality has not changed notice ably in historic times, present generations can under stand past generations in terms of their own experi ence. Those historians can make the best analogies and contrasts who have-the greatest awareness of possible analogies and contrasts — that is, the widest range of experience, imagination, wisdom, and knowl edge, Unfortunately, no platitude tells how to acquire a wide range of those desirable qualities and knowl. edge or how to transfer them to an understanding of the past. For they are not accumulated alone by pre- cept or example, industry and prayer, though all of these may help. And so historiographyr* the synthesiz- ing of historical data into narrative or expositions by vwniting history books and articles or delivering history lectures, is not easily made the subject of rules and regulations. Some room must be left for native talent and inspiration, and perhaps that is a good thing. But since precepts and examples may help, an effort will be made (see especially Chapters VII-XII) to set forth a few of them. » Confson ares here too fom the fat that hstoropephy i sometimcr std fo mean the eal amination of htry books trendy ten, a5 for example, in ealge counes on “itor hy.” “uustony” ano “nisToRtcaL souaces” 51 History of Historical Method Historical method, however, not only can be made the subject of rules and regulations; for over two thoy sand yeas it has been. Thucydides, who in the Ath] entary 2.6. wrote his famous history of the Pelopon-p hyena nesian War, conscientiously told his readers how he gathered his materials and what tests he used to sepa-) tate_truth from fiction. Even when he invented speeches to put into the mouths of contemporaries, hie tried to make them as like the originals as his sources of knowledge permitted. He hoped to conform. both to the sprit of the speaker and the letter of the speech; but since stenographic reports were not avail able, he had sometimes to supply the speaker's words, “expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them.”* Since Thucydides’ day, many historians have writ- ten, briey or at length, upon historical method. Out- standing examples are Lucian, Tbn_Khaldun, Bodin, Mably, Voltaite, and Ranke, though sometimes their Hide have dai with the scope rather than the tech- niques of history. With Ernst Bernheim’s Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphiloso- phie (1st ed, Leipzig, 1889), the modem and more academic discussion of the subject may be said to hhave begun. Since Bernheim’s exposition a number of ‘other textbooks have been published. Although none of them surpass his masterpiece, peculiar merits in- tended for particular kinds of readers are found in * Phydides Translated into earn ower, Reaves sere2 UNDERSTANDING 1SFORY some. Notable examples are the Langlois and Seigno hos volume for Frenchmen; the Johnson and. the [Nevins volumes for Americans; the Harsin and the Kent booklets for younger students; and the Wolf, the Hockett, and the Bloch and Renouvin books for students of specialized fields of history. In all of these works and literally dozens like them there is a of unani sarding_the method Fegan toe acti el Aaitycel in) Mh Qebelecn = Oeics ons ine” sis of the particulars thus derived is pdamutoristorogophy, aboot which there is 1s unanimity ~ Wrasnt2 mpong the textbooks. For purposes of clarity we shall it efierhave to treat analysis and synthesis as if they were vox soca discrete processes, but we shall see that at varius & stages they cannot be entirely separated, Sources ‘The historian's problems in choosing @ subject and collecting information upon it (the latter sometimes Gignified by the Greck name of heuristics) willbe dis- i ‘cused in Chapter IV. Historical heuristics do not dit. fer essenti fographical exercise in faras peed ba 3 these are archeological, epigraphical, “ansrony" ano “ansronicatsouncas” 58 ‘museums. Where they ave oficial econ, he may have to seatch for them in archives, courthouses, gexia- smentalibratis, ete. Where they are pivate papers not available in ofcial collections, he may have to hunt among the papers of business houses, the mun ment rooms of ancient castes, the prized possessions of autograph collectors, the records of parish churches, ete, Having some subject in mind, with more or less defnite delimitation ofthe persons, areas, times, and functions (ie., the economic, political, intellectual, diplomatic, oF other occupational aspects) involved, he looks for materials that may have some beating ‘upon those persons in that area at that time function- ing in that fashion, ‘These materials ate his sources. ‘The more precise his delimitations of perions, atea, time, and function, the more relevant his sources are likely to be (See Chapter X). The Distinction between Primary and Other Original Sources \Waiten ad ol source ee dived into to knds primary and secondary. A primary source isthe testi Stn sateen teenieas sine the senses, or of a mechanical device like the dicts- Phone = that i of one who o lat which wa eset tne wvents af which He or fel [hee lied Say penton) 'hwontay tn tha tnany of yore who i ot tn ering tht ne WED WYN pat the cen of while BIG hima souee mest shaw bem alae 7 contemporary of the erent nance doe anata, he hast depend lage on ofan ica LUNDERSPANDING HISTORY not however, nec to be eign inthe legal sense of the word original *— thatthe very docament (9 ly the fist written draft) whose contents ave the Subject of dscssion ~ for quite often a Istereopy ot 2 printed edition wil do jst a8 well and in the ease tthe Greek and Roman clases seldom are any but Inter copes available “Original” ia word of so many dierent meanings ‘he mosnats that it would have been beter to avoid i in prec 2) fetopet® Norcal discourse. Teen be, an fequently uted Bfeke todencte five diferent conditions of document, al of nee, Qciee, Oey 1 see Isa, pase “ja sch be D ‘come common among historians, and it i desirable to Beferns Gefine its usage accurately. It is best used by the his forian in only two senses — (1) to describe a source, Godse Dept San, espinado & vel Fron fe the han 1¢ authors (eg, the original draft of [eeglets Phan of the ats (ea, the org | paaee the Magna Carta) or (2) a soutce that gives the earli "y fe. ‘est available information (ie., fe oem), regarding © the question under investiga 2 LEAL. TCE Jahn H. Wemore, Stadnt's Textbook of the Law of Ev aeclenn dene (Che, 3938): FP. 35-6 “austony” Ano “inisronicat. sources” 55 have been lost (inthe snte that Livy isan “ovginal source” for sore of our knowlege of the Bogs of ome). In using the phase stonans are requently pail of loses, An efort wil be made to eH Fc only in the two senses jst defined ead PE ogc ‘Primary sourees need not be original in ether of 2" these two ways They need be “original” only in the (ower Sense of underined or rsthand ato ther testimony. “This pont ought to beempased der to avod confusion. between oigal. sours and) paimary soutee. The confusion aes Rom a particlaiy cre lest tie of the word original. It is often used by his. teins as a synonym for manasrpt or rcv eta moments tetenon wil sufie fo indeate thats mano: Seat ource no mote likely to be primary than Printed sure, an Chat i may be a copy eather than the “orginal Even whete i isa priary soute, tay deal with a subject upon which eae inform tin is alendy avalible. Hence a manuscript soute 's not necessarily “origina” in either of the two relevant Senses ofthat word Ie shouldbe remembered thatthe Historian wen analysing soutes i ntvsted chip in pateulare ond that he asks of exch particular wheter ii bated on frsthand o: secondhand test ‘ony Hence it males smal difference to him whether, 3 documents “original” inthe sense of "as writen by is actual author" ora copy, except in so far as sue cvignalty may ad him to determine is author and therfore whether its primary ef secondary, fom hat more independent testiony it derived. Sto ents of histo readily depend pon specialists in ei torial skis and archival techniguesto publish collee6 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY tions of manuscripts and are willing to use them in printed form. Primary Particulars Rather than Whole Primary Sources Sought As has jst ben ndcted, the istoran es com cerned with source aa whol than wth the prc Ine data within tbat source. Tes easy fo concetve of source essentially primary that wall ootinsecondaty (and therefore leis usable) date, The general who tes a commonigue thers provides source that tay be forthe most part primaty but fr many details secoodary, because he mast neces depend upon fis sobordinates for infomation ceardng much tat be reports Tue newspaper corespndent may, lite ‘Aeneas, tell about things all of which he aw and fart of which he wat” an yet may ao have to depend Upon “an offi spokes” ors Surce sully con Sered relable” for some of his Information, The Greta historian wl not ute all the statements of sich tality communigues ot newpaper dipethes with qual confidence On the oer hang, hos he nd, the fequently does that 2 book tht is ently Secondary (lke » biogaphy or even a work of fiton} Contains for example, petonal letters or toches of sively observed loa color, he may well use them a8 fst had evidence if they ae genuine ad relevant Soutes in ater wos, whethe primary oc se onda. aie important to the historian because they ontait-pinary partcalats (ora least suggest leads to primary patra). The psticulas they fumish “mstonv” ano “smstoRIcaL sources” ST are trustworthy nat because of the book or aticle or repott they ate in, but because of the reliability of the perator a8 a witness of those particulars. This point will be elaborated later (see pp. 139-44)- The Document nthe ‘used to mean 2 written sousce of historical information as contrasted with ‘oral testimony of with artifact, pictorial survivals, and archeological remains, On the other, itis sometimes reserved for only official and state papers such as trea- ties, ws, gants, deeds, ete. Still another sense is con- tained in the word documentation, which, as used by the historian among others, signifies any process of proof based upon any Kind of source whether watten, call, pictorial, or archeological, For the sake of clarity, ‘seems best to employ the word document in the last, the most comprehensive meaning, which is etymo- logically correct, using written document and official document to designate the less comprehensive cate- ‘ores. Thus document becomes synonymous with source, whether waitten or not, oficial or not, primary ornot. The Human’ and the “Personal” Document3s UNDERSTANDING HISTORY in social life:"* The personal document has been de- fined as “any ze zevesling record that intentionally ot tnintetionally yields information regarding the struc ture, dynamics and functioning ofthe author's mental life" The frst definition is by a sociologist and em- phaszes “experience . . . in social lfe” as an element Of the human document. The second definition is by a paychologist and emphasizes “the author's mental life” asan clement of the personal document. Yet the words fhuman document and personal document have been used interchangeably." ‘The two kinds of documents seem to have one essential characteristic in common; a human, perzonal reaction to the events with which they deal To both sociologist and psychologist it isthe 7 ir Bort, An Appa of Themes end Zaaniech's ‘The Posh Pewont ih Esope ead Arve ("ontqus of Reseach in the Seid Sones” VOLE New Yok 293). 80 “Gorton W. Apr, The Ur of Pon Deters in Poy cnotpal Scns (fw Sok, Seen Seence Resch Cour 19h Ba A iden Red, “Fowvort” to Blame, pv Cf Alp, yp ss Alport ay at forthe peel ethos of we ier or Et pesen ard thrdpetondocumeat. They role reacts of mates rer relay, nd techies of sett’ Fr the hon, wo a eel posible a emery dt to piney peril, thse ae ely tobe gts etetele tho quae diferent. Tht to ey,» pacpant EEURC un psbaly he mee mmerss fa and eta te than cenppe coupons (who edna, ay be Ties se Ine panier. Sul, 2 fintpenon accust by + Fa Tastee cues dence only for he particle which tha feeSpate es co hth tesimany of for lade to Std Eitoy asda td pencn account of the sme ale by 8 er ean a ween of thee Ed Brin Alforeapess tat “the Sstpean and thie enon doc Seat Aoi Seal withthe sgl ese and on hs Guin wil ‘nd ora topter” See ao Alp P19-20 degree of subjectivity in these documents that distin- guishes them from other documents. The best exam- ples "seem to be documents written in the frst person. “like autobiographies and letters — or documents written in the third person but describing human re- actions and attitudes — like newspaper accounts, court records, and records of social agencies. ‘To the historian the difference between frst person and third-person documents is not of major signifi ‘cance, That is true for at least three reasons. (1) Often. fan apparently third-person document is in fact first person (25 for example, the Mémoires of Lafayette ot ‘The Education of Henry Adams). (2) Genuinely third-person documents in so far as they are “histor icable” * must ultimately rest on first hand observation. (whether by the author or by someone consulted by the author). (3) Every document, no matter how thoroughly the author strove to be impartial and de- tached, must exhibit to 2 greater or leser extent the author's philosophies and emphases, likes and dislikes, and hence betrays the author's inner personality." Ed ‘ward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Em- pire, Johann Gustav Droysen’s Geschichte Alexonders ddes Grossen ot Hippolyte Taine's French Revolution 1 Algo, pa Blame 2 CHES elneat hi odo designate “xs of tin easing be sin’ Pe ne ts our te ele pil bet est ob onal a ceredibitty, i“ meen tr Seat stove. Hc El, Dans of Life (Baton, 192) 9p 1, ‘rete ileet teins of Nepton by 2. We and BiB aw sbi othe diene betes Wel and Faei I Co [UNDERSTANDING HISTORY may be segatded as secondary, thitd-person accounts ‘of remote history, oF they may be (and indeed have been) regarded a5 autobiographical writings of Gib bbon, Droysen, and Tine. Scholarly reviews of schol: arly books ought to be among the least likely places to hunt for personal eactions (except, 38 sometimes hap- pens with the best reviews, the reviewer deliberately Sets out to present his own point of view); and yet how often private philosophies, attitudes, likes, and dislikes are unintentionally betrayed by the most sober reviewers! Whether a document isto be examined for what it reveals about its subject or for what it reveals about its author—whether, in other words, it is a third-person or a first-person document — thus de- pends upon the examiner's rather than the author’s in tention For the same resson the term personal document is to the historian synonymous with the term human document. These terms were invented by social sci ‘ntists, The historian isnot likely to employ them, To him they appear tautalogous. All documents are both hhuman and personal, since they are the-wosk of Ju san beings and shed light upon their authors as well 1 Cl. J. W. Swain, “Edward Gibbon and the Decline of Rome,” ‘South Atlante Quarter, XOEKTX (2940) 77-93; John R.Koiping, "Gurman Htanane s0d Macedeien Imperial,” American His tora Renew, XXXI (3931), 659-61; Lous Gottschalk, “rench [Rewltion” Conspiracy ot Cicumance” in Peneewton ard Lib- iy. Ess in Honor ef George Lincoln Burr (New Yotk, 393), FP oeisn CL JH. Randall sd George Hains, “Contig Asop- USNs the ace of Amesan Hitedang,” Mele Curt et af, pp. t7'se and HK. Beal, "What Hitosans Heve Suid sbout the Beat the Gia War” i, pp. 55-93 “iastoxy” AND “IsTORICAL sounces” 61 2s upon the subjects the authors were trying to ex Bound, Sometimes, indeed, they betty the author’ personality, private thoughts, and social Ife mate e ealmgly than they de ‘he had under abservation. Hee, to, a documents gnfcance may ave a greater relationship to the intention ofthe hi torin than to that of the author. Sometimes the hie tov. may lem more about the author than the v- thog intended that he should CEA, pp, sn-ta, whe the nto prod donc et